9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (8) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd are these: A constable while returning home after performing his duties was knocked down by a tractor owned by appellant No. 1 - Kashiram Yadav. Appellant No. 2 - Raghuraj was then driving the tractor. He had no driving licence. The widow of the constable and her children claimed compensation from the appellants and the insurer. Towner resisted the claim contending inter alia that he had already sold the vehicle to a third party and that vehicle was driven by the licensed driver Gaya Prasad at the time of the accident. Both these facts were not established. The Tribunal held that Raghuraj Singh was driving the tractor and the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving and not due to any fault on the part of the constab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, there is a breach of this condition, the insurer will not be liable to indemnify the owner. 5. Counsel for the appellants however, submitted that insurer alone would be liable to pay the award amount even though the tractor was not driven by a licensed driver. In support of the contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan , [1987]2SCR752 . We do not think that that decision has any relevance to the present case. There the facts found were quite different. The vehicle concerned in that case was undisputedly entrusted to the driver who had a valid licence In transit the driver stopped the vehicle and went to fetch some snacks from the opposite shop leaving the eng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fy the insured. The insurer in such a case cannot take the defence of a breach of the condition in the certificate of insurance. 7. But in the present case, the onus of the insurer has been discharged from the evidence of the insured himself. The insured took a positive defence stating that he was not the owner of the vehicle since he had already sold the same to a third party. This has not been proved. Secondly, he took a defence stating that the vehicle at the relevant time was driven by a licensed driver, Gaya Prasad, (PW-2). This was proved to be false. There is no other material even to indicate that the vehicle was entrusted to the licensed driver on the date of the fatal accident. With these distinguishing features in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
